She was in on designing the study. Also what I thought I heard her say about peer review was she doesn’t think the peer reviewers thought that much about the shitstorm this was going to create. Her comments on peer review did not seem that plausible to me. Others may disagree.

I have never posted here before, but I read BTB regularly and am amazed at the thoughtfulness, persistence, and good will that Jim, Tim, and Rob sustain. I thank you heartily and am gratified and overwhelmed by the sense of community and devotion evoked in the entries and accompanying comments. Thank you, all.

In this regard, I particularly admire “Straight Grandmother,” who may some day be recognized as a remarkable figure in moving the GLBTQ world forward. SGM, you are superlative! God speed to you always.

The latest set of entries regarding the Regnerus situation have upset me in a way I’ve not been upset before because of the multii-layered levels of dishonesty and ignorance. Having watched the video of Regnerus, I don’t think he intentionally means unkindness. He seems naive, in the way that academics trained in quantitative science can often be. I have worked with such individuals professionally and have often been amazed at how they will manipulate a theory and data to suit their point of view, which in this case is obviously entrenched in a conservative Christian mindset.

What upsets me the most is how the academic effort toward objective research has been violated in so many ways in this study: the reductive, manipulative presentation of the questionable data; the time table for acceptance, publication, and accompanying commentaries; the puzzlement as to who reviewed this manuscript and did not note the obvious defects so clearly laid out here by Jim and Rob (anyone with a bit of social-scientific training could have spotted these weaknesses); the fact that this Osborne commentator actually participated in the research (yet appears to be suggesting in her commentary that she is somehow independent of the study); the questionable professional perspective and connections of the journal editor; the funding sources, the publishing time table in relation to upcoming elections and court cases—-I have never before seen such a disturburg stream of questionable circumstances.

What I’d like to know is what can we do? What can be done? How do we facilitate an organized demonstration against this article and the individuals who allowed such a sham to unfold?

This is really beyond the pale. I am at a loss for words.

So, perhaps this journal is not easy to get published in. I’m not sure how long this editor has been editor, and maybe things have been that way for a long time, or maybe this is new.

I’ve seen him referred to as “long time editor”, whatever that means.

First off, IVF means extracting an egg, fertilizing it and then implanting it. It’s far simpler to just do an insemination with donor sperm in vivo. Second, early lesbian families sometimes raised children together with gay men who donated the sperm privately.

There is a documentary about this from 1984(!) about such families:
http://www.groundspark.org/choosing/index.html
http://www.outfest.org/legacy/choosing_children.html
In some ways that movie started the gayby boom

It’s true that this didn’t really take off until the early 90s, but your focus on IVF isn’t accurate. Instead of focusing on the technology it’s better to say that the idea of gay families having planned children didn’t become really popular until later.

That said, is there a great reason to exclude children that transitioned from an opposite-sex to same-sex family when they were very young? If a kid’s parents broke up when they were only two or three years old, they wouldn’t even remember anything from that time.

“Following the mailings, telephone recruitment by trained interviewers/recruiters begins for all sampled telephone numbers. Telephone numbers for cases sent to recruiters were dialed for up to 90 days, with at least 14 dial attempts for cases in which no one answers the phone, and for numbers known to be associated with households. Extensive refusal conversion was also performed. The recruitment interview, about 10 minutes in length, begins with informing the household member that the household had been selected to join KnowledgePanel. If the household does not have a computer and access to the Internet, the household member is told that in return for completing a short survey weekly, the household will be provided with free monthly Internet access and a laptop computer (in the past, the household was provided with a WebTV device). All members of the household are enumerated, and some initial demographic and background information on prior computer and Internet use was collected.”

http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/documents/NFSS-study-design.pdf

From this main page
http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/people.html

[SGM- Not really. They were insistent that they only interview adults over age 18 that was their problem. If they would have interviewed younger than age 18 people they would have found plenty. It is not that children planned and raised in a mommy+mommy or daddy+daddy home are to few, it is simply that they are young. The first IVF in the United States took place in 1981.It takes a while for that medical technology to work its way out throughout the medical community. And I wonder if anybody can remember when was the first time an adoption was permitted by a State to a declared lesbian or gay man?

From here-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000774

Main page here-
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/social-science-research/recent-articles/